Yacht Skipper accused obstructing warship

[timbartlett]

Sorry for the delay in responding: I've been away.

...we have a good legal system in this country along with a fair amount of legislation to protect our rights - provided that you know how to access it.

and provided you have a huge amount of time and money taking on an opponent for whom both are provided by the taxpayer and are therefore effectively unlimited.

People need to realise that neither the police nor the MCA make the law and if their ideas are wrong then they need to be challenged.

Hmm. I'm afraid that is debateable. Most secondary legislation is generated by civil servants and signed off by ministers with no (or very little) parliamentary scrutiny. And whilst organisations such as the RYA might find themselves on the consultation list for new legislation, it is pretty much a cast-iron certainty that ACPO will be

As to the particular case in point - I have little sympathy for a professional sailor who was going the wrong way in the TSS

Nor do I. But I have enormous sympathy for someone who was clobbered with a fine that was several times bigger than that imposed on other professional seamen whose actions resulted in significant actual damage -- rather than a couple of near misses. And I see no relevance whatsoever in the implication that he compounded his error by failing to respond to the radio, given thta there is no legal requirement for the vessel concerned to have a radio, or to maintain a listening watch.

...given that they were handed out by Magistrates I don't see that that can represent any form of official policy.

Most of the cases brought for TSS infringements in the Dover Strait go to the same court -- Folkestone. And whether it represents official policy or not is, frankly, irrelevant. The income generated from fines all goes into the same pot.

Magistrates often seem to represent the views of the community in which they live so it may, for example, to be hard to get a Magistrate from a fishing town to impose a significant fine on a fisherman.

So it's OK, in our magnificent legal system, to break the law if you're a local, but not if you're not?[/quote]

I am not aware of an amateur sailor being prosecuted, although I have a vague memory of someone being fined for having out of date flares or something on a 45' Motorboat

I suspect the case you are thinking of is the guy who got hammered for various "infringements of safety regulations" because (amongst other things) he failed to carry a fire axe and several buckets of sand, and had horseshoe lifebuoys instead of rigid round ones approved by the DoT

 

[puddock]

They wouldn't prosecute him if he wasn't guilty, eh? Are you a magistrate, by any chance?



Perhaps, but "being a smartar*e, know-it-all, arrogant toss*r" is not and should not be a criminal offence.

I agree that "being a smartar*e, know-it-all, arrogant toss*r" is not and should not be a criminal offence". However, the flaw in your argument here is, that "being a smartar*e, know-it-all, arrogant toss*r" " will on many occassions lead to "matters" going somewhat further than they might have done ordinarily.
This applies, not only in regard to Police Officers etc but also when interacting with other members of society.
In my view, " smartar*e, know-it-all, arrogant toss*rs" should be taken down to the station (or round the back of the bar) and given a good bloody kicking. It is amazing how many " smartar*e, know-it-all, arrogant toss*rs" suddenly change their attitudes and decide that, "you took it the wrong way/ picked me up wrong" once a good kicking is administered.
This may not be a very poltically correct argument but I make no appologies. Open your eyes and take a look at the attitudes of the youngsters that the Police have to deal with. This is compounded by the parents having the same (or worse) attitudes as their Darling little Timmy.
I'd gas the b--tards!

 

[timbartlett]

Tim - are you defending someone for needlessly driving the wrong way up a TSS

No. See my reply to Bedouin.

whilst not listening/repsonding to VHF?

Must have missed it. When did VHF become compulsory on recreational craft?

I don't think that the MCA can "settle out of court" the way you describe.

I don't recall describing any such thing.

Reduced fines for pleading guilty ... helps stop people trying on a defence when they know they are guilty on the hope they might just get off.

Sorry, I thought it was up to the accuser to prove guilt, and that everyone had a right to defend themselves?

Have you raised your concerns about errosion of democracy with your elected representatives?

Yes, but he's kinda busy admiring the several thousand pounds-worth of trees that were bought for him by unsuspecting taxpayers prior to his sudden decision not to stand for re-election.

Because there is really no point ranting about it to me.

Why not? Don't you pay your share of the taxes that keep these parasites in the manner to which they have become accustomed? (Or are you one of them?)

The authorities have not decided to prosecute for fun. I stand by that. Its a whole load of hassle for a whole load of people. it would be much easier to verbally bollox the skipper and do nothing.

It isn't "hassle": it "justifies" the "need" for ever increasing numbers of staff and budgets in the only growth sector of the British economy.

You don't last long in the Civil Service by being controvertial - and pursuing pointless cases to court will not improve the career prospects...

I know of at least one case (mine!) in which the only reason it went to court was because by doing so it protected the individuals concerned from investigation by the ombudsman.

Those directions may be questionable but the plod have the right to impose them.

No, they don't. The trouble is that the system is heavily geared towards ensuring that complaints fizzle out, and that "overzealous" officials are never prosecuted. If officials who intimidate or defraud the public were occasionally brought to book, and made to pay a personal penalty for their behaviour, I might respect the others. But they are not. So I don't

Think you might have missed the point - not that I wouldn't fight them if I thought I was in the right - but I wouldn't be acting as my own counsel.

So you reckon you can afford a more expensive lawyer than HM Gov't, and can afford to retain his services through all the delaying tactics, lies, and obfuscation that would come your way?

I have absolutely no objection to the guy pleading not guilty,

Sorry, I thought you said that pleading innocent was justification for increasing the fine?

 

[puddock]

Hear! Hear! here too.

I suggest that right-thinking citizens have the responsibility to question all "requests from authority" to act in a particular way that appears to be solely or mainly for official convenience. If the request appears arbitrary and/or is not founded on expressly delegated powers, it is both right and necessary, for the continuance of individual liberty, that the person issuing the request should be challenged to demonstrate the authority by which it is made.

it is both right and necessary, for the continuance of individual liberty, that the person issuing the request should be challenged to demonstrate the authority by which it is made...

I think you will find that the "person issuing the request" has indeed demonstrated the authority by which it was made and the case should now go before a court, where assuming he is pleading not guilty, he will be given a fair trial by jury. Or are jurors now part of your corruption ridden world too?

Our country is far from perfect but I do wish some of you would come out of your little bubbles sometimes and realise just how bad MOST of the rest of the World is and how thankful we should be that we live where we live.
At the end of the day, most of you are boat owners - if you don't like the country, sell up and b-gger off somewhere else. Sitting in the background whinging about things has never achieved anything. Do something.

 

[westernman]

No. See my reply to Bedouin.
Must have missed it. When did VHF become compulsory on recreational craft?

If you have VHF, keeping a "watch" on channel 16 is compulsory.

And, I think, that if you are hailed on channel 16, you are then you are obliged to reply.

 

[sarabande]

OK, so it's some time since I did the VHF courses, but what is the regulation(s) which make use of VHF compulsory please ?

In which case, I have been breaking the law every time I go out, as once beyond the training walls I switch off unless I need to use it !

 

[pau1gray]

I didn't think that you 'had' to keep a watch on Ch 16 if you were on the radio - however the Port of Plymouth Order does state:-
Carriage of very high frequency radiotelephony equipment
36. - (1) All vessels wishing to navigate within the Dockyard Port are required to
carry fixed or portable Very High Frequency radiotelephony equipment, which shall
comply with the Merchant Shipping (Radio Installation) Regulations 1992[6]
(2) Every vessel shall maintain a listening watch in the wheelhouse on the frequency of
156.8 Megahertz (Channel 16), or any other frequency that the Queen's Harbour Master
from time to time may order, when it is within the Dockyard Port.
(3) Vessels not carrying Very High Frequency radiotelephony equipment in
accordance with paragraph (1) above shall not navigate in the Dockyard Port exept with
the prior permission of the Queen's Harbour Master.

And this applies to all vessels both every merchant or private vessel (edit!!! over 25m!!))

 

[jenku]

If you have VHF, keeping a "watch" on channel 16 is compulsory.

And, I think, that if you are hailed on channel 16, you are then you are obliged to reply.[/QUOTE

I have always been under the impression that only commercial vessels are required to keep a watch on 16.

 

[RIB_imposter]

No. See my reply to Bedouin.
Must have missed it. When did VHF become compulsory on recreational craft?

i didn't say it was. But its good practice - and one might expect that if the CG call you just after starting to go the wrong way up the TSS and you respond, appologise and correct your course that you will get away with it or at least get a much smaller fine. If you choose not to use the VHF (and/or ignore it) then I think its reasonable that the penalties are greater.

I don't recall describing any such thing.

thats odd because I was sure you said
Anyone who is tempted to resist is subjected to an intensified barrage of threats along the lines of "if it goes to court you'll have to pay a much bigger fine and all our expenses. And then we'll get the bailiffs round and you'll have to pay them, too."

Sorry, I thought it was up to the accuser to prove guilt, and that everyone had a right to defend themselves?

thats right but its in everyone's interests that where the offender knows he is guilty and that there is a strong body of evidence that he accepts that and avoids a protracted court case etc. Accordingly there is an incentive (i think they like to present it as a "discount" for pleading guilty rather than an extra penalty for denying it!

Why not? Don't you pay your share of the taxes that keep these parasites in the manner to which they have become accustomed? (Or are you one of them?)

yes but there is no one here who is going to change it - so use your energies more constructively...

I know of at least one case (mine!) in which the only reason it went to court was because by doing so it protected the individuals concerned from investigation by the ombudsman.

ah... it makes more sense not your have a personal agenda

So you reckon you can afford a more expensive lawyer than HM Gov't, and can afford to retain his services through all the delaying tactics, lies, and obfuscation that would come your way?

I didn't say I could afford a better lawyer - but I'm not a lawyer so even a lawyer I can afford must be better. If it comes down to who's lawyer is better its a border line case.

Sorry, I thought you said that pleading innocent was justification for increasing the fine?

no I said pleading guilty was grounds for reducing the fine - it makes the system work better and saves you/me the taxpayer money rather than having someone trying it on with every claim.

 

[NormanS]

OK, so it's some time since I did the VHF courses, but what is the regulation(s) which make use of VHF compulsory please ?

In which case, I have been breaking the law every time I go out, as once beyond the training walls I switch off unless I need to use it !

What a selfish attitude!

 

[sarabande]

in what way please ?

I understand that it's only obligatory for vessels over 25m to have VHF in use at all times. If I potter out for a little fishing in a dinghy, and don't have a vhf on, why is that 'selfish' please ?

 

[westernman]

From

MGN 324 (M+F) Notice to all Owners, Masters, Officers and Pilots of Merchant Ships, Owners and Skippers of Fishing Vessels and Owners of Yachts and Pleasure Craft.

Which I think means it applies to all pleasure craft as no mention is made of > 25m etc.

1.14 Watchkeeping

Every ship, while at sea, is required to maintain watches. Continuous watch keeping is required on VHF DSC Channel 70 and also when practicable, a continuous listening watch on VHF Channel 16. In certain cases Governments may require ships to keep a watch on other channels.

 

[photodog]

OK, so it's some time since I did the VHF courses, but what is the regulation(s) which make use of VHF compulsory please ?

In which case, I have been breaking the law every time I go out, as once beyond the training walls I switch off unless I need to use it !

You are a very naughty boy.

 

[timbartlett]

From

Which I think means it applies to all pleasure craft as no mention is made of > 25m etc.

No, it doesn't. That particular quote comes from an annex to an MGN (not even the MGN itself). And although the MGN purports to relate to pleasure craft, the annex is from an IMO document that pertains only to SOLAS vessels (i.e., generally cargo vessels over 300tons or carrying more than 12 passengers)
An MGN is a Marine Guidance Note -- intended to do precisely what the name suggests.
The ones that have legal significance are MSNs (Merchant Shipping Notices) -- but even those are only a way of publicising particular regulations, rather than absolutely definitive references.
But it's wonderfully confusing, isn't it.
If you were working for a government department, and wanted to make rules that people would stick to, don't you think you'd make them as simple and easy to understand as possible? If on the other hand, you set out to make rules that would trap people, it could be quite handy if they were as confusing as possible, wouldn't it? And if you then muddied the water even further by offering confusing advice ...

 

[oceanfroggie]

Imho, on a practical level small leisure vessels should keep out of the way of shipping at all times (ie sail and power), irrespective of the strict letter of the colregs, and most sensible ones do.

 

[timbartlett]

In my view, " smartar*e, know-it-all, arrogant toss*rs" should be taken down to the station (or round the back of the bar) and given a good bloody kicking.

Open your eyes and take a look at the attitudes of the youngsters that the Police have to deal with. This is compounded by the parents having the same (or worse) attitudes as their Darling little Timmy.

What a strange coincidence that you have chosen the same name for your hypothetical delinquent child as that of an ex-RN officer in his mid 50's with whose views you disagree.

And how interesting that you advocate giving "a good kicking" to people who believe that police officers should be reminded that they are required to act within the law.

I'm afraid I believe that thugs who assault, intimidate, defraud, or steal from innocent members of the public should be punished, whether they are in uniform or not.

And I believe that criminals would respect "authority" more if the guilty were punished and the innocent were not, instead of vice versa.

So, I believe, would most of the rest of the law-abiding public.

 

[Observer]

Tim,

I read and enjoy your contributions to various boating mags and your website articles. However, I think your arguments here are a bit confused.

You clearly have a marked distaste for bureaucracy and a sceptical view of the motivations of regulators, which I share, up to a point. However, I think it's a bit strong to suggest, as I think you have done, that there is a conspiracy against pleasure craft and/or the people who own/operate them (you will remember the saying "never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by mere incompetence").

I agree the penalty meted out to Mr Choat (£8,000 fine + costs) seems unduly severe, particularly in comparison to the seemingly more egregious examples of negligent seamanship you highlighted). However, it seems to me that once the decision to prosecute was taken (which was in the hands of civil servants), and I can't disagree with that decision, the penalty was in the hands of the magistrates who heard the case. They are of course NOT civil servants but lay people, albeit advised by a clerk/legal adviser who is paid out of the public purse but does not, I believe, advise on sentence. The penalty was heavy but, as a single example (unles you have others examples from the same court, or even the same bench), it is far fetched and unjustified to extrapolate from that to support your wider arguments against over-regulation.

I do agree with your general thrust - there is too far much law and regulation and it is certainly a result of self-interested civil servants (and politicians) seeking to justify their existence, extend their influence/empires and their control over the populace. The sheer number of criminal offences that has been added to the statute book in the recent past is breathtakiing. And what better way to justify the need for regulation than to invent more offences and offenders from which the hapless public need to be protected?

 

[dombuckley]

Been there, done that.....

Blimey this goes on a bit.

Just to clear up a few misapprehensions:
1. The master of any vessel can be taken to court for infringing IRPCS.
2. This is not a NuLabour conspiracy, this has been the case for decades.
3. Prosecutions do not happen just because a civil servant has got out the wrong side of bed that morning, there has to be a prima facie case to answer.
4. It is not a case of "might is right", quite the reverse: as with the case below, the actions of a small vessel can often put a larger one in hazard.



I know all this as, during the "halcyon" years of John Major's government, I was involved in an incident in the same place, while bringing a "Pusser's Grey" into Plymouth., along the charted and buoyed channel. A strong northerly was blowing, and a windsurfer decided to "come and play" as we were making the westerly leg to the N of Drake's Island. He first circled our preceding ModPlod (which now had his flashing blue lights going), and then decided to do the same to us. Unfortunately, he lost it about 100 yards in front of us.

Full astern both stopped us in time, but left us being set very quickly down towards Drakes Island. Luckily the ModPlod plucked him out of the water and we just about squeeked past and berthed without further incident. At closest, we had been about 30 yards away from grounding.

The guy was prosecuted under the Merchant Shipping Act. As with the present case, he represented himself. OK, he was a lawyer (who had been "sailing all his life"), but obviously not a very good one, as his only defence was a repeated mantra of "...but power gives way to sail". Our navigator gave a clear concise explanation of Narrow channel regulations to the Bench. At this point, proceedings descended into farce, when the defendant reached into his case, rifled through a notably prestine copy of "The Yachtsman's Guide to the Rule of the Road", and started challenging Navs on various rules and how well he knew them. He became visibly annoyed when the Rules were quoted verbatim, and he closed his defence with the classic quote "just because you know the rules, doesn't make you right".

He was found Guilty and IIRC fined £300 plus costs.


None of the above may be applicable to the present case, but it is an example to show that prosecutions may be few and far between, but they can and do happen, and they happen for a reason.

 

[timbartlett]

I read and enjoy your contributions to various boating mags and your website articles.

Thanks, a bit of flattery is always appreciated

However, I think it's a bit strong to suggest, as I think you have done, that there is a conspiracy against pleasure craft and/or the people who own/operate them

I don't think I did suggest conspiracy There are all sorts of possible reasons -- including a predisposition on the part of MCA officials to empathise more with the view from the bridge than the view from the cockpit, to the likely coverage of a case in the local freesheets (compare "the owner of a of luxury motor yacht was fined for speeding through crowded waters" with "the livelihoods of three families were sacrificed by magistrates who imposed such a heavy fine on a local crabber that strayed into a shipping lane that the owner has been forced to sell")

The penalty was heavy but, as a single example (unles you have others examples from the same court, or even the same bench), it is far fetched and unjustified to extrapolate from that to support your wider arguments against over-regulation.

The first of my four examples was from Truro. The other three were all from Folkestone, and all within a few months of each other.

And what better way to justify the need for regulation than to invent more offences and offenders from which the hapless public need to be protected?

 

[Seven Spades]

There is no question that that the fine handed out to yachtsmen are out of all proportion to the offence committed. I don't quite understand how the tariffs have been set. Do magistrates think that all yachtsmen are multi-millionaires?

They seem to impose the biggest fines on those least able to afford to ay them i.e. delivery skippers. If you steal from a shop of mug someone you will get a caution but make a navigational error in a TSS you might end up having to sell your house, it is utter madness.

I am not suggesting for one minute that it is OK to hang around in a TSS going the wrong way, but the fines ought to be proportionate and in al likelihood they have endangered themselves and their crew and no one else.

What we still don't know is what exactly this fellow is charged with and why 700 meters is considered impeding a navel vessel. As far as I can see there is no offence of being that as close as 700 meters so he is obviously charged with something else.

There is a lesson for all of us here, but we don't know what it is yet.

Earlier in this thread it was mentioned that someone's fine would have been higher if they had not pleaded guilty. I believe that discounted penalties for pleading guilty are a barrier to justice. In many cases their is a dispute as to whether an offence has been committed and as such I think that the purpose of the courts is to determine the case. A person should be able to stand up and defend his actions rightly or wrongly and should not be punished for doing so.